Brooks on Outliers

David Brooks wrote a very thoughtful column in the New York Times yesterday on "Outliers." Much of what he said was very flattering.

I have just two comments in response.

1. Brooks argues that I "slight the centrality of individual character and individual creativity" by focusing so much on the cultural and contextual determinants of success. Successful people, he says, must begin with two beliefs--"that the future can be better than the present, and I have the power to make it so." I completely agree. The chapter on lawyers, for example, is devoted to the idea of "meaningful work," which is just what Brooks is talking about here, the perception that there is a connection in our daily life between effort and reward. It's such that I think that the belief in meaningful work is socially constructed. Those highly successful children and grandchildren of Jewish immigrants who are the subject of that lawyers chapter were not successful because each, independently, happened to be endowed with the magical genetic trait of self-efficacy. They were successful because their very fortunate cultural circumstances gave them that belief in meaningful work. Nurture here is driving nature, not the other way around.

2. Brooks suggests that Outliers represents a kind of social determinism. But that's an odd comment to make in the context of a column championing the role of nature over nurture. It's only nature that is unchangable and deterministic. Nuture, by definition, isn't. And the last half of Outliers is devoted to showing that when we confront our cultural legacies--whether it's in the cockpit or the classroom--we can make a big difference in how well we do our jobs.

I am reminded of a quote that I've heard many of my mother's generation say: "There but for the grace of God go I." It is a recognition of how tenuous life can be. A recognition of how human all of us are whether or not we are Bill or Melinda Gates.

What about a double major at a leairbl arts university?Major in something like chemistry or biochemistry as well as majoring in multimedia (or film production or whatever). You'll probably need to make some connections in order to get your foot in the door for a career in the film/music industry. So, you should make friends with your professors and hope that they know people in the business. It's not the most secure way to land jobs. The pharmacy programs aren't nearly as competitive as jobs in the film or music industry, and you're right pharmacists can end up making a lot of money. You should also realize that they need a lot of education, and know math and science very well (believe me lots of counting).

Let us not forget that "The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, but time and chance happen to them all." Individual power and creativity can be blocked by "stupid" people who are in charge. The real test is in how we work with those stupid people in order to get what we want/need. And that's an important skill no matter how our culture or society changes.

Bio

I'm a writer for the New Yorker magazine, and the author of four books, "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Make a Big Difference", "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" and "Outliers: The Story of Success." My latest book, "What the Dog Saw" is a compilation of stories published in The New Yorker. I was born in England, and raised in southwestern Ontario in Canada. Now I live in New York City.

My great claim to fame is that I'm from the town where they invented the BlackBerry. My family also believes (with some justification) that we are distantly related to Colin Powell. I invite you to look closely at the photograph above and draw your own conclusions.